Azelle Rodney Murder Charge

[Bigends]

The Cop who did the shooting was still seated in the front passenger seat of the Police car and shot matey through the door of the car. The whole matter hinged around the fact that the enquiry found he couldnt possible have seen what he was doing in the back of the other car and couldnt have formed a view as to what he was doing. Other cops were out and had surrounded the other car.

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 30th July 21:46

[Eclassy]

FuryExocet said:

I may have misunderstood you, but it sounds like you think that if you fear you're about to be killed by someone, that isn't enough for you to kill them first?

You definitely have. Which is why I used the fireworks example. I wouldnt expect an armed policeman in Parliament Square on hearing a loud bang (fireworks or a car backfiring) to immediately shoot in the direction of the sound. Being in an area which is a potential terrorist target means it would not be unreasonable if he thought he was being shot at but to turn and shoot in the direction of the sound without assesding would be unreasonable.

This is why I talked about real/perceived threat. For a trained policeman, it shouldnt just be about fear, these kind of decisions (to shoot) should be based on threats.

[johnny fotze]

paintman said:

As a member of a Tactical Firearms Unit I received a small 'standby allowance'. I don't recall the amount but it wasn't a lot. Week on call, week off call. During week on, no alcohol, you had to be contactable at all times (pre mobile phone days so a pager which often went off for no apparent reason so you had a search for a phone)remain within the Force area & expected to turn out at any time of the day or night whether on duty, off duty, rest day, Christmas day etc.
I do sometimes wonder why my wife put up with it.

One of my hobbies was shooting, in particular full-bore pistols. I competed successfully at national level, and it always amuses me when people pontificate about 'why can't they shoot a gun out of the baddies hand', 'how can they miss a man size target' etc etc. Just tells me that the pontificator has never shot & has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Even under the 'stress' of shooting against the clock in competition it wasn't that unusual for an experienced shooter to completely miss a torso sized target. Never mind something that might shoot back.

Edited by paintman on Wednesday 30th July 20:22

Shooting a gun out of someone's hand and missing a man sized target are two very different things. One is almost (stick some italics on that) confined to Hollywood, the other is either poor marksmanship or a (possibly subconcious) unwillingness to shoot and possibly kill a man.

[340600]

johnny fotze said:

And you are?; the voice of experience? someone with Clinton Baptiste like powers of empathy? a cake obsessed rotunda? a degenerate gambler? someone who confines his name calling to the safety of the internet?

Someone who works closely with Armed Officers day-in, day-out (one of whom is handing in his firearms ticket after hearing about today's events but that's besides the point).

You might want to take a look in the mirror before you start talking about name calling on the the internet.

[paintman]

johnny fotze said:

Shooting a gun out of someone's hand and missing a man sized target are two very different things. One is almost (stick some italics on that) confined to Hollywood, the other is either poor marksmanship or a (possibly subconcious) unwillingness to shoot and possibly kill a man.

Thank you for confirming that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Dibble]

agtlaw said:

Never heard about this case until today. The inquest website has a number of interesting documents - Gísli Guðjónsson's psychology report is very interesting. I'm for not guilty.

The law of self defence has been codified. See here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section...

Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 30th July 18:34

Thanks for the link. You're right, there's a ton of stuff there that would no doubt make interesting reading. I've read Professor Guðjónsson's report too, and he really is about as qualified as you can get I imagine (I'll be looking at some of his stuff around interviewing for my own benefit/interest).

It'll no doubt be an interesting process (thankfully I'm not involved) but stressful for all parties. Interesting points made by the professor about stressors affecting recall though.

[Bigends]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20WR3b4RQxo

[johnny fotze]

Bigends said:

The Cop who did the shooting was still seated in the back of the Police car and shot matey through the door of the car. The whole matter hinged around the fact that the enquiry found he couldnt possible have seen what he was doing in the back of the other car and couldnt have formed a view as to what he was doing. Other cops were out and had surrounded the other car.

Answers my question, thank you. I did attempt to add a little humour in asking (easy shot for you there) why so many, not entirely accurate shots were fired, to avoid the 'how dare you' and ' you don't know what you're talking about' etc bile that pollutes this fine forum. I think this may have been a consideration (shots fired, not this forum) when deciding whether or not to prosecute, and may also be a point raised at the trial. Thank you to those who saw that I wasn't cop bashing, and thank you to the trolls who raised their hands.

[Bigends]

johnny fotze said:

Answers my question, thank you. I did attempt to add a little humour in asking (easy shot for you there) why so many, not entirely accurate shots were fired, to avoid the 'how dare you' and ' you don't know what you're talking about' etc bile that pollutes this fine forum. I think this may have been a consideration (shots fired, not this forum) when deciding whether or not to prosecute, and may also be a point raised at the trial. Thank you to those who saw that I wasn't cop bashing, and thank you to the trolls who raised their hands.

Ta, ive amended my original - the shooter was in the front passenger seat of the Police car which was level with matey in the backseat of his car. Saw him lean forward and started shooting.

[Pentoman]

Dibble said:

Many thanks agt.

A shorter link to the executive summary of its findings:

http://azellerodneyinquiry.independent.gov.uk/docs...

Paras 9 and 10 being the most relevant so far. Let me know if this is useful.

[Rovinghawk]

Deputy Chief Constable Simon Chesterman tweeted: "Justice will prevail."

One hopes that such would be the case. Let the trial begin- may it be decided without unnecessary delay.

[Dibble]

Pentoman said:

A shorter link to the executive summary of its findings:

http://azellerodneyinquiry.independent.gov.uk/docs...

Paras 9 and 10 being the most relevant so far. Let me know if this is useful.

Funnily enough, I did have a skim of the summary before I saw your link. What I still struggle to reconcile is how the enquiry "knows" what E7 was thinking, particularly with reference to the psychologists report saying his recall may have been flawed due to stressors of the event - not that he necessarily lied (which of course, he may have), but that he could have been mistaken.

The "honestly held belief" is subjective. Even if, post incident it is shown to be "objectively wrong", it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be a defence. I've perhaps not worded that the best I can - for example, if an officer believes there and then he's seen the suspect with a weapon and shoots him/her, the fact that weapon later turns out to be a blank firer or a replica (and therefore not capable of causing injury) doesn't mean the officer acted unlawfully.

[Dibble]

Rovinghawk said:

Deputy Chief Constable Simon Chesterman tweeted: "Justice will prevail."

One hopes that such would be the case. Let the trial begin- may it be decided without unnecessary delay.

What will your feelings be in the event of a "Not guilty" verdict?

[Rovinghawk]

Dibble said:

What will your feelings be in the event of a "Not guilty" verdict?

I'd be interested in the ratio decidendi bearing in mind the findings of the enquiry.

May I ask your feelings in the event of a guilty verdict?

[anonymous-user]

agtlaw said:

Never heard about this case until today. The inquest website has a number of interesting documents - Gísli Guðjónsson's psychology report is very interesting. I'm for not guilty.

The law of self defence has been codified. See here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section...

Some psychology on PH! It is worth highlighting is it probably relevant for the Duggan shooting.

Dibble said:

What will your feelings be in the event of a "Not guilty" verdict?

There will be plenty who'll position themselves mentally that the jury will be wrong / system bent etc if he's found NG.

[Dibble]

Rovinghawk said:

Dibble said:

What will your feelings be in the event of a "Not guilty" verdict?

I'd be interested in the ratio decidendi bearing in mind the findings of the enquiry.

May I ask your feelings in the event of a guilty verdict?

I'd accept it as it will have been through the full judicial process and they will have heard all the evidence. If E7 has done wrong, he should be called to account for it (as should anyone). If he hasn't, he should be acquitted.

Would I be happy with a guilty verdict? Probably not if I'm honest. I'd feel let down that a colleague has done something so wrong. I'd feel sorry for him going to prison, as he'd undoubtedly get a very hard time inside.

[Rovinghawk]

Dibble said:

If E7 has done wrong, he should be called to account for it (as should anyone). If he hasn't, he should be acquitted.

I'd hope we could all agree on that.

Dibble said:

I'd feel sorry for him going to prison, as he'd undoubtedly get a very hard time inside.

(if guilty verdict) All the more reason to not act illegally.

[pork911]

an idiotic tweet.

[anonymous-user]

pork911 said:

an idiotic tweet.

He's the DCC of the CNC, he has nothing else to do

[anonymous-user]

A jury just produces a yes/no answer. It does not produce a "ratio decidendi" (for the non Latinate, that is a needlessly fancy way of referring to the core reason for a judicial decision).

Comments above about the shooter being a rotten shot suggest, as pointed out by those here with real life firearms experience, unfamiliarity with handguns and/or excessive belief in Hollywood fictions. Handguns are famously inaccurate and especially so when being used in a dynamic situation rather than in the calm surroundings of a shooting range. There are many incidents in which people (especially untrained gangsta types) empty hand guns at one another at close range without scoring a single hit.

The officer may perhaps be regarded as a good shot because, in a fast moving situation without time for careful aiming, he hit the person he was shooting at*. Whether he should have shot at that person at all is the big question for the jury to decide.

• Similarly, the officers who shot Lee Rigby's killers in the course of a rapid and dynamic encounter were good shots, and criticisms of them for wounding and not killing the murderers are unfair. They neutralised the threats, and then gave first aid to the killers, and in every respect acted commendably.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 31st July 12:15